Sea Shepherd: From Shark to Sardine

I’ve been following and sharing the work of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society for many years, during which I was in awe of their actions and surprised by their decisiveness and effectiveness.

At the same time I was always in a way waiting for the other shoe to drop.

By following and supporting many organizations that claim to fight for worthy causes since I was a kid -WWF, Greenpeace, PETA to mention a few, even national ones like Igualdad Animal and Anima Naturalis (both in Spain)- I’ve come to recognize a pattern of evolution in all of them, and I was wondering when this process would take place in Sea Shepherd.

When these associations are young and don’t have many members, they are vital, swift, effective. They scream to the world “this is something we all need to look at, and we need to do something about it soon!”.

These actions are very visible, and are what bring the organizations that carry them out to the attention of the public. At that point more people think their message is worthy of their support, and join up.

Then it happens.

There comes a moment when
what once was a panther
becomes a tame lap dog.

Mind you, I have nothing against panthers, and absolutely nothing against little tame cute lap dogs.

I just recognize the difference between the two. The first change the world, the second give us joy and happiness. Both are important.

But they don’t work the same way.

I’ve seen this transformation in all of them, last of which Sea Shepherd. It sadly and inevitably got to the same point as all the rest.

The New Sea Shepherd?

Let’s make one thing very clear: I do not think that any organization that evolves into a “lapdog” leaving its young enthusiasm, fierceness and speed of action behind, is useless. But it definitely has a different societal role than the one it originally had.

"Evolved NGOs" are essential for liaising with governments and reach lawmakers. This is also how society changes.

A very different story is carrying out non-violent direct action, though.

Non-Violent Direct Action is

Disruptive
(not a synonym of violent)

uncomfortable
(it drives us to question)

often unlawful
(not a synonym of unjust)

What many NGOs do in their beginnings is push us to look long and hard at a certain issue in its raw form, without any filters, as it really is.

It’s like if someone takes our face with both their hands and turns it so that we can see what we don’t.

“Look!”, they scream in our ears. And that scream might bring us to question something we never did, something we inherited from our parents, family, the society we live in, without ever having agreed to it.

That is their main role.

And that’s definitely what Sea Shepherd did, for many years. The right they claimed to enforce international agreements -signed by oh so many countries that never moved a single finger- to protect the lives of hundreds of living beings, was what made me and many others fall in love with the organization.

The results were evident, the disruption to unlawful actions was as deep as to have even governments worried.

Sea Shepherd, 10 years ago. The little Bob Barker and its brave crew, squashed between two floating titans -the poacher whaling ship Nisshin Maru and the refueling tanker Sun Laurel- in a successful attempt to disrupt their illegal activity. Video in link above.

So more people joined. And we know that, even if we agree on one matter with many other people, we might disagree on all the rest. Wanting to save whales doesn’t make us all of one single mind.

Aside from money, this seems to be the natural mechanism that pushes the evolution of NGOs. The more people have the right to make their opinion part of the organization, the fastest this organization moves towards “tepid”, the middle, the safe.

The voices that call for the daring and controversial actions that cause disruption to an oblivious society are deemed "extreme" and are drowned by the ocean of voices that call for “reason” and “working within the system to change the system”, which is obviously much more comfortable and safe.

It's not that I consider worrying about personal safety a negative thing, on the contrary. I never participated in any of the Sea Shepherd actions because I’m the sole responsible for my family, should anything happened to me they would literally starve (my family are street animals, adopted or fostered). I've always been deeply aware that participating in a Sea Shepherd campaign would not only take me far from my responsibilities for a long time, but it would also put my personal integrity and liberty in danger.
So there, I said it, I’m the first who worries about personal safety, you can quote me.

This doesn’t mean that somebody else isn’t willing and able to risk life and livelihood for a cause they believe in. As many used to within Sea Shepherd.

This is what I admired. And this is what is now lost.

The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society has finally turned the page from their origin story -a change that was drawn out for years- and has evolved from a fierce non-violent active-action organization to an NGO that asks governments for permission before doing anything.

Which is, I insist, also good. But not the same. “Evolved NGOs” that concentrate their efforts into collaborations with governments and legislative bodies can influence changes in laws and policies. Yes.

But to have the necessary weight to exert that influence, there needs to be a previous step. And this previous step is exactly what they aren’t doing any longer: non-violent direct action.

They turned their back
oN the very people on the streets,
on the waters, in the woods
and on the mountains,
who scream “LOOK!!!”
pointing to what doesn’t work
in our society.

Without society noticing, “evolved NGOs” would have no teeth.
The scream is the very first step for change.

It saddens me that Sea Shepherd, the “Pirate of the Seas” as it was labelled by US courts, lost its fangs.

The once fierce Sam Simon, toothless.

As for me, I’m married to no NGO.

An organization is only a bunch of people who do what they think is right. If I realize my priorities no longer match with the priorities of the people behind a name, I look for another group.

Fortunately I’m not the only one noticing this “panther to lapdog” transformation, and I’m not the only one who thinks that a first shout is an indispensable catalyst for change.

So please, take a honest look at the organization you are supporting right now, and ask yourself if it’s still operating in line with your vision of the world.

If it isn't, be assured: new groups will form. They always do.

They will occupy the streets with their shouts and force us to look.
With time, as victims of their own success, they too will evolve into milder versions of themselves.

And I will leave them behind too, following the action that brings change.

As for you, I hope you will never stop looking for a group of people who gives voice to your principles.

Please, don’t get stuck on a name

There will always be people in the world who realize the value of non-violent direct action.

Unfortunately these people are the ones who always bear the deception of the inevitable transformation of the groups we are part of.

Considering that human spirit also needs a recharge every now and then, when you meet a group of people that is risking their personal integrity and freedom for a cause you deem worthy, if they push you to think about something you never even considered, tell them. Help them. Support them as well as you can.

They are the people
who start the change

No matter the cause, and even if you can't actively participate in non-violent direct actions, if it resonates with you please give your support however you can.

As an aside, I think it’s worth mentioning that, at the head of those small groups of people who change the world, there’s always a big ego. I think it’s important to recognize that too.

Personally I believe that it’s impossible to lead a strong and decided group of people towards a change in society, without a large ego.

That, as everything else in life, is a blessing and a curse.

A big ego pushes one to limits other people would not reach, which translates into real results.
But of course keeping it in check is a lifetime struggle, and it very often shows.

Big egos, large personalities, electrifying personas are what captivates our attention.

It is important, I think,
to separate what people DO
from who they ARE

It is perfectly acceptable to approve of an “action” and not fully agree with the “person” who carries it out.

Laura